Talk:Unnamed Fictional Heads of State and Government
We might want to rename this "unnamed political leaders." It's a bit more succinct, and it would give us wiggle room to include unnamed persons who didn't hold the title of HoS/HoG but were nonetheless very influential and powerful, like the Speaker who assigned Flora to the Transportation Committee. Also, if we make each line a subsection, we can link to it for purposes of succession boxes. That . . . might be useful. Turtle Fan 01:48, June 27, 2011 (UTC) Donut. Turtle Fan 16:15, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :I can't imagine that there would be much interest in anyone below the HoS or HoG, but that's me. Or put another way: the HoS and HoG we have listed so far gives us insight into how the various worlds work or are different from OTL. If we start throwing in politicians SoH, the page feels a lot less informative, and more of a general list of things we don't know. That could go on forever with HT's writing choices. ::Yes, I suppose. "An unnamed Democratic Speaker of the House assigned Flora to the Transportation Committee" doesn't sound very exciting, does it. Neither does "An unnamed senator from Idaho was a dick to Dowling when he appeared before the Committee on the Conduct of the War," "An unnamed Democrat was elected to Flora's once and future seat when the Democrats had a big year in 1932" (right?) and so on. Actually it would by and large look like a chronicle of people Flora met in her career. ::I'm trying to think if there's a story where some unnamed viceroy of a colony or majordomo of a palace wields undue influence and this becomes a significant plotpoint--like Duke Raoul in IHP but without the name. That would be a somewhat stronger justification (though even then we might just want to use another article) but nothing's coming to mind. Turtle Fan 17:19, June 27, 2011 (UTC) :The succession box idea might be nice. TR 16:46, June 27, 2011 (UTC) ::I'll try it and see how it looks. Turtle Fan 17:19, June 27, 2011 (UTC) Pope in the Great War I've heard that there is a reference or two to the Pope during the Great War. If so, would that be eligible for inclusion here?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:15, July 18, 2016 (UTC) :That was extrapolation on our part. Pascal Talon was elevated to bishop in the same scene where Galtier learns that the RoQ has declared independence, and it's pretty clear the two are related. Only the Pope can make a bishop, so we assumed the Vatican approved of Quebecois independence. Throw in Irish and Polish independence as well and a pattern emerges: majority Catholic nations winning independence from empires whose rulers had histories of suppressing the Church. :Back in the day we figured we were onto something, but as our anti-speculation policy solidified, it had to go. Turtle Fan (talk) 06:31, July 18, 2016 (UTC) ::The idea that the Pope appointed Talon as Bishop sounds pretty solid, even if the rest is too speculative.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 06:42, July 18, 2016 (UTC) :::Oh, it's a certainty that he signed off on Talon's elevation. But he wasn't mentioned as having done so. Even if he had been, our write-up would be limited to "There was a Pope" (to which, no shit) and "This Pope elevated bishops, including Pascal Talon." Well of course he elevated bishops, that's part of the job description. And that Talon benefited from this is noted in his own article. :::By the way, if we follow the above conjecture to indicate the Vatican openly rooting for the Central Powers, that wouldn't be a great fit for their OTL policy of constantly calling for a negotiated peace. So it might be a different Pope from Benedict XV. Even if the Pope is named Benedict XV, it could still be an entirely different person. Or it could be the same person behaving differently under different circumstances. So we can't even say whether he's fictional. (Technically the same is true about Pius XII later in the series, but HT gives us a much clearer picture of author intent through hint-dropping, even though doing so spawned an inconsistency.) Turtle Fan (talk) 10:43, July 18, 2016 (UTC) Atvar's ship "It has been proposed that Atvar's bannership the 127th Emperor Hetto is named after this Emperor, but this is purely speculative." This has been proposed...by whom? And since it's purely speculative, why say anything about it? TR (talk) 22:44, October 23, 2016 (UTC) :I've certainly never heard it proposed. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:45, October 24, 2016 (UTC) ::It seems clear to me that whoever added that entry is proposing it, although who else is also proposing it, not so much. It doesn't seem unreasonable speculation but I doubt there is anything to suggest it in the series. ML4E (talk) 18:36, October 24, 2016 (UTC) :::The speculation that the banner ship is named for the reigning emperor is intuitively logical, although it lacks textual confirmation.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 09:22, October 25, 2016 (UTC) ::::It's not the type of speculation necessary to make the article coherent. Nor is is per se intuitively logical, since we know nothing of the Race's ship-naming procedure beyond naming ships after emperors. TR (talk) 14:34, October 25, 2016 (UTC) :::::And even if it were intuitively logical, that's very different from saying it "has been proposed." Turtle Fan (talk) 07:17, October 26, 2016 (UTC) 17th POTUS in 191 This seems like the sort of section we were trying to avoid back in 2011. This page should be focused on people who appear or are at least in office within the four corners of a given story. 17th POTUS isn't such a position. No section of the series takes place during the presidency of the 17th. If we took this model to it's logical extreme, then we'd also need to have a section dedicated to every president between Lincoln and Blaine, then to everyone between Blaine and T. Roosevelt (with exceptions for Mahan and Reed). And it would apply to other offices, e.g., every POTCS between Davis and Longstreet, and again between Longstreet and Wilson, every PMUK between Palmerston and Churchill, every German Chancellor after Bismarck, etc. And that's just for 191--There are similar gaps in every multi-generational work (WW POTUS-Hull, GAP, Warren, Stassen, GAP, Peterman) This section isn't necessary. TR (talk) 17:47, March 1, 2017 (UTC) :I'm pretty sure the 17th POTUS in 191 is actually alluded to, unlike the others.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 17:50, March 1, 2017 (UTC) ::Go back and re-read what I wrote above, and you'll see why your response does nothing to support your argument. And for the record, Flora actually thinks of the fact that 30 men held the office before Hosea Blackford, so yeah, they are alluded to. TR (talk) 17:55, March 1, 2017 (UTC) ::Whether he is alluded to or not, I don't see what this new entry adds. ML4E (talk) 22:19, March 1, 2017 (UTC) Prime Minister of Japan Joe Steele "By March 1953, an unnamed Prime Minister has fired and replaced his cabinet on several occasions, rarely with any long-term effect." That is not what the text says. Midori says that the "new Prime Minister always shakes up the cabinet. Sometimes it matters." That's a description of the pattern of Japan government before the war, and presumably after. That doesn't refer to a specific individual PMoJ. TR (talk) 20:58, September 24, 2017 (UTC) :That's nearly always the case, even in a true parliamentary democracy. Look at the UK and the shake-up Theresa May did after Cameron resigned. They were from the same party but each wanted their own team when they took on the role of PM. In Joe Steele, I don't recall the particulars but my impression is what TR is saying, that Midori was talking in generalities of what happens and comparing it to what Garner was doing after the death of Steele. ML4E (talk) 16:28, September 25, 2017 (UTC) Clarification as to intent of page So it seems that I wasn't very clear with the intent of this page in the introductory paragraph. The purpose of this page is to list contemporary leaders who are referenced in a given work by title. We know there was a premier of Quebec in Southern Victory, a General Secretary of the Italian People's Republic in TGlad, a laundry list of leaders in ItPoME, CN, etc. These are the people in power at the time of the story's setting. They go here. It is NOT for vague references to people who might have held the office. We don't need to have the 17th President of the US from Southern Victory here based solely on vague references. No part of 191 is set during that person's term. We don't need to have the emperors of Agrippan Rome here just because there are busts of such people in GE. They do NOT go here. TR (talk) 23:03, October 4, 2017 (UTC) Title redirects to this page I just realized that nothing really links to this page. Should we create some minor character re-directs like "Premier of Quebec (Southern Victory)". They'd also have appropriate categories as we do with the minor characters. TR (talk) 02:23, January 6, 2018 (UTC) :Yeah, I'd do that. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:39, January 6, 2018 (UTC) :I had previously created several story specific redirects e.g. Unnamed Fictional Heads of State and Government in Supervolcano which go to the particular story sub-titles. Those have only the story character cat rather than more details. I don't object but the way the redirects work, we would not be able to distinguish two unnamed characters from different stories if their titles were the same. I glanced at the list and found two references to "The Poglavnik of Croatia", one for ItPoME and the other for "Ready for the Fatherland". Now the first is an article so perhaps should be removed from here since its supposed to be similar to "Minor Characters" type articles but the problem remains in principle. We could address it by adding the work in parenthesis in the sub-title. ML4E (talk) 19:44, January 6, 2018 (UTC) ::I picked up on that issue just after I proposed the idea. I propose that the redirects use the format of "Unnamed Office Here (Story)." For example, "Unnamed Premier of Quebec (Southern Victory)". That might be a little cumbersome, but the primary purpose of the redirects would be to alert users that Story X has some unnamed world leaders. ::We don't need to apply that to every office. We don't have a page on the office Premier of Quebec, so the comparatively simpler "Premier of Quebec (Southern Victory)" could be enough. On the other hand, since President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, etc are pages, we'd definitely want to do "Unnamed President of the United States (The Road Not Taken)" and "Unnamed Vice President of the United States (Supervolcano)". TR (talk) 02:36, January 7, 2018 (UTC) :::You misunderstand my point. Its not the name of the redirect that is the problem but the sub-title in this article. We have two Poglavniks of Croatia as sub-headings under ItPoME and "Ready for the Fatherland" headings. The structure of a redirect would be #REDIRECT Unnamed Fictional Heads of State and Government#The Poglavnik of Croatia without the system knowing which Poglavnik it refers to. I don't believe the system allows the insertion of the parent title between the article and sub-title (should be tested though) so we would have to include the works' titles in the name of the office title. ML4E (talk) 21:29, January 7, 2018 (UTC) ::::Ah, I get it now. You're right, the redirect won't do that. Let me think about it. TR (talk) 21:54, January 7, 2018 (UTC) ::::Ok, a couple of possible solutions have come to me. ::::Option 1) Both of the Poglavnik subsections say "See Poglavnik Page". We could leave well enough alone here, and do the redirects to the Poglavinik page proper. We would also apply the same model to every other existing title page (POTUS, VPOTUS, Caudillo, Duce, etc.). The remaining redirects would come here. I doubt there will be another "Czar of Siberia" in any story but "Les Mortes d'Arthur" anytime soon. ::::Option 2) We move these subsections to their respective Minor Fictional Characters pages, and pull the plug on this particular experiment. Downside are the couple of short-story characters we have, like the President of Peru in "Vilcabamba"--they just have to be lame stub short story character articles, which wouldn't be the end of the world. TR (talk) 22:45, January 7, 2018 (UTC) TR (talk) 18:59, January 9, 2018 (UTC) TR (talk) 15:07, January 10, 2018 (UTC) Bump and grind, bump and grind. Yes, I kept meaning to comment. For the specific of both Poglavnik sub-sections, I think we can just delete the two since we have a separate article for the position. Likewise, anyone else who has an article. I think I would prefer to keep a master article for throw-away mentions of other, unnamed leaders. ML4E (talk) 20:50, January 10, 2018 (UTC) GOOD NEWS! We can create redirects for each repeating subsections like Poglavnik. The format depends on which subsection comes first. Using Poglavnik: the ItPoME section comes first so the redirect would be the usual: #redirect:Unnamed Fictional Heads of State and Government#Poglavnik of Croatia However, for the RftF, its the second one, so the redirect has to have _2 at the end of the redirect: #redirect:Unnamed Fictional Heads of State and Government#Poglavnik of Croatia_2 It's important to keep an eye on that if we abruptly decide to rearrange the article for whatever reason. TR (talk) 19:48, January 11, 2018 (UTC) :Very good news indeed. ML4E (talk) 20:25, January 12, 2018 (UTC) And a kick in the head After reviewing the passage in RftF, I don't think we even need a redirect for the poglavnik in that story. The specific incumbent isn't directly addressed or acknowledged. We are only told that Ante Pavelić had successors, which of course he did, since he wasn't immortal. So we should really just delete the section here and the redirect. But we do know how to do redirects with multiple subsections. TR (talk) 20:01, January 11, 2018 (UTC) :Ah, well. I used it as an example since it was the first duplicate I came across but being able to handle such things is still good to know. ML4E (talk) 20:27, January 12, 2018 (UTC) ::Actually, after all this time, I just found a relevant passage which indirectly references the incumbent Poglavnik. After describing Pavelic, it says "and his successors weren't any nicer than he had been." Implicitly, that blanket description includes the man currently in charge.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 18:15, September 26, 2019 (UTC) :::Successors, sure but the incumbent isn't described, even in passing. That sort of reference is better handled on the Poglavnik of Croatia page than here. TR (talk) 18:56, September 26, 2019 (UTC) Unnamed Sec of State Supervolcano As this page is for heads of state and govt only, this character should go to Minor Fictional Characters in Supervolcano. TR (talk) 14:10, March 14, 2018 (UTC) King of Kings of Makuran in The Tale of Krispos "Throughout the trilogy of books about Krispos' life, the King of Kings of Makuran has offstage involvement in various plot points. It is not known whether one King of Kings ruled Makuran throughout the period of time covered by the trilogy, or whether there were different kings at different points in the story. No names are ever provided in any of the relevant scenes." Not true. A reigning KoKoM is identified towards the middle of Krispos of Videssos as Nakhorgan. Link hopefully forthcoming.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 18:53, March 20, 2018 (UTC) :Nice. TR (talk) 19:45, March 20, 2018 (UTC) ::Then, right at the beginning of Krispos the Emperor, we have Rubyab son of Nakhorgan.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 04:24, March 22, 2018 (UTC) ::Good finds. Turtle Fan (talk) 05:14, March 22, 2018 (UTC) President in Liberating Alaska There is a quick reference to a sitting president in LibAK. It's nothing depth: Eddie Houlihan tells an injured Red that the President wasn't going to let the Bolshies get away with taking Siknazuak. Frankly, it's so incidental, I don't see much value in creating an entry here for that one line. But, I thought I'd ask everyone before making a final decision. Incidentally, given the very little info we have about this TL, it's still probably Hoover. That's not written in stone, though. TR (talk) 15:25, July 10, 2018 (UTC) :I haven't read LA yet but given your description, I agree its not worth it. ML4E (talk) 18:05, July 10, 2018 (UTC) :I wouldn't bother. What would it say, "A president existed"? Turtle Fan (talk) 15:41, July 11, 2018 (UTC) ::Pretty much. And he wasn't going to let the Bolshies get away with it! But he's an enemy of the proletariat! TR (talk) 16:24, July 11, 2018 (UTC) :::"A President sent Marines to Sikwhatever to drive out a Bolshevik invasion"? I'm surprised HT didn't make clear who is POTUS. Maybe, given butterflies, the POTUS is Al Smith or William G. McAdoo if he's a Dem, or Charles Dawes if he's a Rep. Or, given HT's track record, it could be Walter McKenna aka Kennan.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:42, July 11, 2018 (UTC) ::::That's TR's point exactly, I think. It could be anyone. There's not nearly enough to justify speculation. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:15, July 11, 2018 (UTC) ::::What we know is a) a US President exists, b) he sent in marines to regain US territory seized by Bolsheviks (no, really) c) he is unhappy and will not let them get away with it. This is what TVtropes calls People Sit On Chairs. ML4E (talk) 17:56, July 12, 2018 (UTC) :::::I should have realized TV Tropes would have a trope for that. TR (talk) 18:14, July 12, 2018 (UTC) President in "The Road Not Taken" Take a look at this sub-section. The story only says that the President and the Governor were too busy so the Mayor of Los Angeles (The Road Not Taken) headed the delegation meeting the Roxolani. This seems to be similar to the LA example above, the Pres exists and is too busy implying landings elsewhere in the USA. :We can live without it. TR (talk) 23:57, September 7, 2018 (UTC) ''The House of Daniel I wonder if the Hitler and Mussolini analogs should be removed, as there is no specific reference to what countries they rule or what their titles are. Character redirects could be routed to their hist refs, a la Larrupin' Lou and the Bambino. The Soviet ruling council is too vague, akin to "we don't know who is ruling there but we think it must be..." It would have been nice if HT had just thrown us one line referring to an obvious Stalinist vampire.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 22:51, September 12, 2018 (UTC) :I think so. TR (talk) 23:48, September 12, 2018 (UTC) Through Darkest Europe'' ambiguities I am unclear whether the Prince of Wales, Dauphin, etc., should be in this list or MFC, as they are not exactly heads of state. I'm not sure the Grand Ayatollah is even feasible as an entry. We don't know for sure that he has head of state or gov't status in that world, and the references that we do have to him seem to be in the People Sit In Chairs department.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:35, October 15, 2018 (UTC) :They should all go in the MFC--Princes, Dauphins, Ayatollahs, for the reasons you set out--neither HoS nor HoG. TR (talk) 19:42, October 15, 2018 (UTC) ::Should the Ayatollah even get that much? PSIC.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 19:50, October 15, 2018 (UTC) :::Since he's compared to the Aquinists, suggesting he does have clout in Persia--probably? Or we can just let that line in the Persia page stand. TR (talk) 19:52, October 15, 2018 (UTC) Avalon, Atlantis In Avalon (novella), the Dutch head of state is referenced obliquely as the House of Orange. Oddly, the story takes place in a time when the Oranges were (temporarily) out of power in OTL, making this a rare butterfly effect for European governments in this series. Should this throwaway HoS be added?JonathanMarkoff (talk) 08:54, April 2, 2019 (UTC) :No, he references the House of Orange, period. The reference is similar to references to the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs. It does not justify a William of Orange page or any section here. TR (talk) 14:55, April 2, 2019 (UTC)